Groklaw provides an interesting analysis of the Apple v. Samsung suit and pointing out some inconsistencies and weaknesses in the verdict:http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
Remember, this is the same source that provided probably the most accurate coverage of the SCO v. IBM/Novell lawsuit.
Also, according to Google the USPTO will be re-examining some of the patents in question, so we haven't seen the final word on this and it might be too early to dump your SSNLF and GOOG just yet.

"As a result of all this, makers of Android devices will either have to fork out money to license Apple’s technology, which will push up the price of their gadgets, or alter the design of their products sufficiently to shield them from legal challenges."

This would be fine if Apple were willing to license its patents at a reasonable price, rather than use them to hobble other touchscreen devices.

"But critics will seize on the ruling as evidence that the litigation frenzy and a proliferation of software patents are having a chilling effect on innovation, leaving society worse off."

Of course it is. Software patents should protect the underlying code, not preclude competitors from developing a workaround that accomplishes the same thing. Granting patents for the "look and feel" of an OS is like granting patents for a drug interacting with a particular receptor, and ruling that all other drugs that perform the same function are infringing copies.

That's a very good point. It's like algorithms, you can't patent an algorithm to accomplish something, but you can patent your particular method. As such, at most Apple can claim their particular method for implementing rubber banding, pinch to zoom etc., but Google et al should be able to implement their own method to achieve the same thing. Patenting basic features and functionality shouldn't be permissible right?

Brilliantly devious move on Apple's part. They fight to get every technological patent they must adhered to declared a standard with FRAND terms and then they hobble competitors using patents for slide to unlock (under which they define a click as a zero-length slide) or for rectangles (iPad) or teardrops and wedges (MacBook Air lid). In essence, Apple seeks to devalue the intellectual property that facilitates the entire industry while hobbling competitors with some dubious patents.

But people always get what they deserve. The patent system will now ensure Apple effectively has a monopoly on usable personal electronics. I doubt this is in the interests of consumers.

Surely one consequence might be for Samsung to leave the US market. With growing market share and brand recognition in other very large markets it can afford to do so and there is a precedent: Nokia was barely represented in the US even while it was the world's largest phone maker. America has missed the boat technologically in the past by favouring its own manufacturers too much (television and even non-GSM mobile phones).

IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT APPLE HAS SHOT IT SELF IN B...LLS IF NOT IN THE FOOT.BY GOING FOR A HIGHLY CONTESTABLE VERDICT APPLE HAS ALIENATED ITSELF IN THE WORLD MARKET.IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE FALLOUT WILL BE VISIBLE IN THE HIGHLY GROWTH ORIENTED MARKETS LIKE CHINA INDIA NOT SPEAK OF ALL OF ASIA AND EVEN AFRICA AS THIS WILL BECOME A US VS WORLD ISSUE.THAT SAMSUNG BRINGS HIGHLY DIFFERENTIATED PRODUCTS AT VERY AFFORDABLE PRICES WILL NOT BE LOST ON CONSUMERS.HAVING SAID THAT BUYING AN APPLE DEVICE WAS MORE A FASHION STATEMENT IN THE EMERGING MARKETS AND APPLE USERS WERE THE BEST SPOKESPERSONS FOR THE US DEVICE MAKER.EARLY TO SAY BUT THESE USERS OF APPLE MAY DUMP THE DEVICE FOR SAMSUNG.THE JURY HAS GIVEN EXTENSIVE COVERAGE TO GOOGLE ANDROID SAMSUNG AND SMARTPHONES TOO.

The cheating thing is iPhone keeps the production in China. Before iPhone hype was huge, Sony Ericsson K and W series were the best among the mobile phones. Sony (Ericsson) should consider to drag apple to the court for the infringement of their walkman series.

Hi,
Apple versus Samsung. Copy that. Bad for business and wrong. A home win for Apple may come back like a boomerang. Patents are usually decided on big things but the court in California has decided on “nut and bolt”. What if VW patented the wheel? Or if Mr. Turing patented the computer technology which Apple use. The Court of Appeal should through this out to save a business mess.

judge posner wasnt so wrapped up in his judicial ego that he couldnt see the forest for the trees. he riciculed claims like apple's. its a shame newly minted judge koh didnt have that judicial wisdom and maturity.

Yes, that's the point. And what if Apple would pay IBM for using an electronic keyboard or else 3Com for using in IPhone a design akin to the good old PALM? It's ridiculous. Moreover, it's nonsense. Judgind by the comments I saw in this forum, I think this can be a backfire for Apple. Because till now Apple has been a darling firm by a large number of Americans, not withstanding they have or not a gadget of theirs. From now on they are risking to be seen as an greedy company, that are harming free competition in its own benefit, instead of an open-minded firm that leads the innovation in the world. Arrogance, not inspiration.
Instead of being admired, Apple is about to be hated... Not a good trade, definitively.

"When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone’s design is “obvious.”
-Dan Frakes

He is exactly right. No one else took the risk to bet the company on changing the whole phone interface . Not one of the phone market leaders, not Nokia, MS, RIM, Samsung or Motrorolla. They were thrilled to be selling you the same old **** and had no motivation to change anything. How was that for the consumer?

Apple did. Apple was the only one that tried. They spent years developing and took the risk to bring it to market. It took an outsider with an entirely different take on things to bring fresh ideas to a stale industry.

And NOW, it is obvious? People thought the iPhone before it was announced would have a freaking click wheel. Thats how obvious the iPhone was to pundits and the phone industry.

From the language in many of these posts, it appears that many dont know Apple pre-iPod. I spent much time on my ol' IIc. For me it comes down to user philosophy, or better yet preference. I prefer a machine that allows me the greatest freedom available without sacrificing usability. Im a guy who would buy a flatscreen and blueray of different brands, given they have the desired specs at my price point. For some this is unheard of. This also goes against Apple's philosophy. In the end, they want everything Apple (in my opinion), and only make an effort to be compatible to the norm where it would severly damage their market share to do otherwise (e.i. usb, introducing windows platform on thier mac computers, etc.). I applaud them on rising and dominating the market as they have done the past decade. They did the right thing in appealing to the senses and producing a very sleak, fine tuned device that has changed the mobile market dramatically. And despite not inventing the multi-touch function, as so many still believe, they were the first to introduce to mobile market as well as patent it for this use. For this Samsung will have to pay up, but this is a small price to pay. Because for us who have split from Apple long before there was an iphone, this verdict will need to go much further to get us back. I will continue to acknowledge the manner in which Apple has pushed forward innovation for smartphones, but I have long before moved toward systems with greater user flexibility. Simply put, I would much rather have a phone without a pinch function but can plug and play with my PC without a massive itunes software and drop files, pictures, video, etc., then sacrifice all that for a pinch. The list goes on...

That is utterly untrue. There were several phones in design and commercially available, (this is where the LG Prada is always brought up) that already showed the direction of smartphones. Whatever people though the iphone would be, it is wrong that no one was heading in such a direction.

The innovation being protected by there patents are things like the app grid which is so obvious it existed even on ten year old feature phones before Apple sought to patent it.

And it uses the same phone icon Apple also want to lay claim to! I remember this phone. People make out like the iPhone suddenly arrived and everything changed, but that's not the case at all. The transition to touchscreen phones was quite gradual. I was using a new Blackberry well after the iPhone came out. Feature phones from Nokia and Sony were still popular. I use a full touchscreen phone now but I still miss a physical keyboard. Hopefully BB10 will save RIM.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada
"It was the first mobile phone with a capacitive touchscreen."

I have seen and read about the Prada.
So why didn't LG sue Apple back in 2007? Maybe because the only thing similar between the Prada and the iPhone was the rectangle with rounded corners. Hey, but wait a 'mo, that's NOT what the actual design patent specifies. So I think you can safely dismiss the LG Prada.
I think it's pretty clear, that for one reason or another, Apple re-defined the 'smartphone' market. Whether they did it by sheer hard-work and four years research or by simply copying prior art and throwing the lot together in 6 months (a la Samsung?) is conjecture. Apple re-defined the smartphone market.
So now MS is in bed with Nokia, and Google has gobbled up Motorola. Why you ask? Pretty simple, they have seen the benefits of tightly integrating software and hardware...something Apple has been espousing for many a year.
BTW, I do prefer Apple gear, but I also feel that Apple is beginning to alienate certain sections of their user base. Should that really start to disrupt my work, I'll be off looking for an alternative, maybe MS?

While Samsung Electronics is reeling from a patent pounding by its smartphone rival Apple Inc, this is unlikely to damage the other part of their relationship - where Samsung is the sole supplier of Apple-designed chips that power the iPhone and iPad. At an emergency meeting in Seoul early on Sunday following the damning US legal defeat, the South Korean group's post mortem was led by vice chairman Choi Gee-sung and the head of the mobile business JK Shin, rather than by CEO Kwon Oh-hyun, whose primary role is in charge of the components business. The clear message from Samsung is that a strict internal firewall between its handset business and its components operations remains intact. While it plans to appeal the US verdict, and a damages bill for $1.05 billion for copying critical features of Apple's popular mobile devices - a sum that could be trebled - Samsung will not want to put at risk its Apple supply contract which is worth billions of dollars. As well as being the only supplier of micro processors for the iPhone and iPad, Samsung also supplies DRAM and NAND-type memory chips and flat screens used in the popular Apple gadgets. Samsung products comprise 26 percent of the component cost of the iPhone, Samsung's lead counsel Charles Verhoeven was quoted as saying in the media. Samsung's component sales could hit $13 billion next year and bring in $2.2 billion in operating profit, according to a recent estimate by Morgan Stanley. That's nearly 8 percent of estimated group operating profit for next year. So much for the courts and the cases I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

I do wonder if this will have an impact on their relationship though, given how aggressive Apple have been. There's also been mention of Apple seeking out other suppliers. What I find odd is, given that Samsung supply Apple's screens, why does Samsung use AMOLED instead, which is worse in sunlight? Do they see it as superior, or do they purposely not want to use the same screens?

But yes, a key part of Samsung's strategy is being a supplier of the underlying components and tech, primarily screens, memory and processors. That way they achieve massive economies of scale, and their competitors effectively subsidise Samsung's own products, allowing it to release top spec products for less, or make larger profit margins. I guess that's why you see so many entry level Samsung phones too with good large screens, it's all about scale.

Here is link to Apple's Design Patent US D504889: http://www.ipblog.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/design-patent-ipad-889-c...
The first thing that will be obvious is that Apple has patented a very specific design and that their claim is very narrow. Nowhere in D504889 does Apple claim a "rectangle" shape nor "rounded corners" as so many have been claiming here. Their claim is for the specific design shown that includes among other things the thickness of the electronic device, the ratio or its length and width, its overall shape (which just happens to be a rectangle) and its rounded edges. Anyone could easily have designed around this patent by merely changing the length/width ratio (i.e., a device that is obviously longer relative to width) or making the device slightly thick or thinner, or using square corners. Instead, Samsung decided to copy the Apple design to a T. But that shouldn't be a surprise because they were copying Blackberry's design prior to the launch of the iPhone.

Can you not enter this discussion please? We weren't even talking about that, and you've clearly shown yourself to be an Apple fanboy that isn't even clued up on the tech industry, or the history of tablet computers.

Apple are trying to lay claim to a rectangle. The S2 looks significantly different, and has all the different proportions you're talking about (it's wider, thinner, has a bulge in the back, etc), and yet the S2 is also seen as infringing. Apple are also trying to sue Samsung for the S3, which looks totally different. Claiming the S2 or S3 infringe for their physical look is ludicrous. So the only patents left are those that apply to all Android phones, because of the OS. But they should never have been granted, so like in an earlier trial, they can say they infringe, but then the patents should be thrown out.

Also, that links to the iPad design, which wasn't even seen to be infringed. The Galaxy tab has totally different proportions. And expecting others not to be able to have a rounded rectangle of those proportions is ridiculous. Once you've established the media tablet concept, of course you're going to have a rectangular shape, with a bezel, and round those corners. So competitors that then enter that market should also be able to use that generic shape. That's the point Apple fanboys purposely seem to miss when they argue that the iPad created a new product category. It's like the first flat screen TV maker preventing all the following competition from also having a black flatscreen, rectagular, with the same aspect ratio (obviously), and a bezel.

Wondering about this Apple and Samsung thing ... if we extend this patents logic to its ultimate end, then everything around us is ultimately made by "a final creator". We only manipulate and rework parts of it.
Particularly speaking of the "rectangles with rounded edges debate", did I know the alphabet when I was born, or was I simply inheriting generations of mankind's cumulative innovation, through some schooling process? Now after all these years, I try calling the product of that alphabet kind learning as "my own, only my own".
Coming back to the creator point, ideally that creator whom some choose to call God, should hold all patents, and all royalties, or a part of it, must be paid to him/her.
Atheists will object, calling it chance that created all this. So a bank account titled "Chance Cosmic Life-Creation" should be created that gets royalties in perpetuity from any patent monetisation. If you have to be really really fair to the millions of humans who contributed indirectly to the knowledge bank that you dip into every now and then to create something you call "your own", then this should be done.
The religious will quarrel as to "which" God should get the royalties. But that can be settled by discussions.

I FIND THE DISCUSSION ILLUMINATING ME AND AS AN INDIAN THIS INDEED SADDENS ME.IF A PATENT HAD LIFESPANS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS WE INDIANS WHO GAVE THE WORLD THE ZERO WOULD HAVE SQUEEZED THE HELL OUT OF THE LIKES OF APPLE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.....RIP STEVE JOBS

Being insulting to other nationalities - in this case one of the oldest living cultures in the world - seems to be another of your Atheistic virtues. Be happy if that's your style. You conveniently forget that the Western nations (starting with Britain) have built themselves on capital looted from Asians over hundreds of years. Separately speaking, Steve Jobs himself - once upon a time - drew enlightenment from the place we call home. Be happy.

Oh come on, Sandy - Suzuki-Maruti happened. Besides, I'm Buddhist. Everybody knows all of contemporary higher math stands on a foundation laid by Indian mathematicians - so, what have you done for us lately?.

For every one Suzuki-Maruti that happened, there are many Lehmans and Freddies/Fannies that lived beyond their means, went bankrupt, ruined national budgets, and created mountains of debt, all along telling lies and fudging books. Isn't that violence of the more ulterior nature, that generations to come shall pay a price for?

What have we done for you lately? Made our nation one of the best markets for The Economist. Ha ha ha :)

at long last you seem to have got some sense ,sensing your buddhist leanings which again originated in a place close to maruti suzuki.be peaceful within yourself brother as you and your society will definately improve as you seem have received enlightenment...meanwhile te reaps gold from our gold mine

This doesn't help to keep prices down but it should increase real competition for innovation. Samsung could try to redefine its culture to be one that creates new ideas rather than one that copies another's innovative formulas.

Same issue but different rulings by their court of each turf shows that a real truth is beyond the human being.
Samsung is too naive and stupid, their stake in Korea is too small compared to Apple's in USA.

some bunch of people so-called jury given the verdict, why should the common man of america give a decision which will cost its own company to suffer. Real Hypocrisy.
American attack every other nation about its business law and environment, now what is this?
Anyways, world is very big. Samsung going to be leader, because they are selling elite technology at affordable price.

some bunch of people so-called jury given the verdict, why should the common man of america give a decision which will cost its own company to suffer. Real Hypocrisy.
American attack every other nation about its business law and environment, now what is this?
Anyways, world is very big. Samsung going to be leader, because they are selling elite technology at affordable price.